Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate; We’re Just So in Love With Him That We’re Not Paying Attention

I’ll just address briefly the issue with consumer protection.

First, there’s nothing stopping a state from enacting its own consumer protection laws.

Second, this is addressable by private groups and in some cases already (UL is a great example). If a corporation commits fraud by saying a product has certain specs when it doesn’t, or meets a standard when it doesn’t, they’ll be hit with all kinds of torts via the civil courts, and criminal charges when appropriate.

Honestly I’d like to see more of this, as there are historical claims of actual harm where a Federal statuatory regulation scheme provided a much easier out for the offenders, and put barriers in the way of victims being made whole.

First: I am a 21 year old college student and I profess to know nothing, least of which who should be the President of my country.

While I share some of your concerns, I feel that some of your criticisms are not because Ron is an extremist, but a traditionalist and would reform some bad ideas that we take for grated as good. Ron Paul seems like a realist — what a conservative should be — and it seems that some your criticisms would be too idealist for Ron’s taste.

On the Christian issue: My interpretation of your cited passages seem that Ron is talking about the goodness of Christianity and, more specifically, the goodness that comes about when that virtue and communal goodwill is expressed in church. He does not mean that the state and the church should be more closely linked, rather that they should intrinsicly serve different social functions. The state should not be the moral guide, that should be left to the communities themsleves and, by extension, the churches within those communities. This social function of religion is too often forgot by some of the non-religious: people coming together in peace, and with the goal of goodwill and of spreading that peace — slightly or fully deluded or otherwise — is a good thing. At such gatherings, people can exchange ideas, thoughts and feelings with people who may share those sentiments. This is so crucial in the creation of healthy, responsible individuals with a sense of community of individuals and it seems that Mr. Paul feels that it has become misguided or even totally lost in much of our society. Futher, Christianity is not the craziest religion — just the most prevelant in our country — but the crazy stories in that old book are irrelevant: the sense of community that religion has brought has been invaluable to virtue and unity in our society.

On localized educations: Four words: No Child Left Behind. Again, I see Mr. Paul as a traditionalist on this issue: formal education began when people in their communities, who would have educated their own kids in the past, decided that it would be more efficient to write down a nice collection of useful knowledge and have a single person spoon feed it. I went to public schools, (and I still go to a public school), but I was in a small community of dedicated — not Christian mind you, mostly Jewish; I am of Catholic descent btw — families who cared about the future of their children. In some places, families expect the government funded schools to raise the children and that, I think, Mr. Paul believes is a shame.

Mr. Paul would see local leaders — who care about the future of their children because they know them by name — take the reigns of the youth. Would this lead to disparity in education? Yes. Would some people teach the bible as the literal truth? Maybe, but Mr. Paul’s dedication to personal freedom guarentees them that right. Diversity is the strength of our country, and intellectuals living with bible-thumpers, provides a sort of perfect irony that I for one, think makes us stronger. The alternative, and the reality that we are fast approaching with our dangerously centralized government, would be a brutal fascism favoring either science or spirituality; and that is the type of outcome Ron is trying to avoid.

And I feel that smaller chunks of corruption are truly better than one big one.

On No College Loans: I go to college. My dad’s business went under last year and he has not been able to support me at all (he was paying my rent and tuition) since and as a result, I have had to work 40+ hours a week to stay in school and pay rent. It is not easy, but you know what? I am young, and the things that I have learned, even in my last two years at school have been so beneficial, so utterly life changing that I would not have had it any other way. It costs me about $14,000 to go to school and about $700 a month to live and I am perpetually broke and, in fact, have been homeless over the past year to pay tuition. But I have figured it out — life — the only way you can: by living hard, you learn how not to. When I graduate later this year, I will have a sense of accomplishment that anyone who has not had a similar experience will not. College is not a given; some people do not go to college and it is no up to the rest of the world to make sure that everyone does. That is not to say that not anyone should be discouraged from going to college or that there are certain people who should be allowed an education by any means, it is just to say that difficult things in life are difficult for two reasons: 1) for the character that conquering adversary brings and 2) to seperate those who are willing to deal with the pain of the road to success from those who are not willing. The nature of our free will, and of the freedom that we enjoy in this country, is such that achievement must be worked for, while failure awaits those who would have the government provide success. The government has helped me in my education: after my dad lost every single asset, including our family home, the government granted me $4,200 dollars for school, including books, and housing for the year. $4,200 to cover over $20,000 in expenses. The fact is, the government simply cannot send everyone to college, myself included, and Ron wants to see the half-help they provide supplanted with an emphasis on self-government and (hopefully!) lower taxes.

On National Heath Care: This is a touchy one so I am going to make it brief: Let the market speak. Put the HUGE health insurance companies that suck the life out of this country, and the drug companies who make us zombies, out of business and… Good luck, Ron.

On the FDA: The FDA has ensured that cigarettes are killing us, cheap cancer cures (See: Immunotherapy Cancer Treatment) are kept off the market, and we are all fat lazy slobs. Yes, the steaks at Safeway are mostly E. Coli free, but this is a failed, ugly organization that it is hard for me to believe that a private group couldn’t be better.

Nothing on EPA: I don’t know the answer to this one. Sorry.

On Wanting Roe v. Wade Overturned: Um, who cares? Isn’t that the judicial branches job? And besides, do you realize how many previous decisions, and post decisions, have to be ignored for that to happen? Even if he would have the power to appoint judges, ultimately, it really doesn’t matter what he thinks of that and any judges he could appoint would have to be completely insane to actually overturn that decision. Not to mention that the principles of personal freedom and privacy upon which the decision is based would actually be very difficult for Ron to refute. Mute, in my opinion.

On Climate Change: The climate is changing; that is simply undeniable. However, the climate has been changing for a very long time and will continue to change for a ling time still to come. The cause is something that should be addressed but the only thing that really matters is whether it will get too hot for people to live on this planet, or if we will be able to adapt in some way to survive. Know one knows which will happen, including Ron, but again, this is already being addressed by the private sector and, by Ron’s assured admission, is not the business of a presidential candidate, anyway.

In studying Ron, I have realized that even though many of his ideas seem revolutionary or extreme, in fact they are simply a return to the spirit of what the laws of this country started out to be. And that may be the revolution that we all need.

Excellent comment, Chris.

The author speaks truth, but I feel you have a too simplistic view of a lot of his ideas. You might want to read The Libertarian Alternative by Tibor R. Machan. The reason you might disagree with some of his views is that you are use to all the welfare state liberals we have now. The government shouldn’t be used as a crutch. People have gotten too use to the government taking care of them. This is why so many Americans are hopeless in so many ways. I would much rather have him with the few flaws them the cookie cutter candidates running right now.

You are right about one thing. Ron Paul is not a socialist and that is seen as his worst crime by the Left. Doesn’t anyone recall those famous words of one of our best presidents: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

On thing you have to get clear on right off the bat is that RP is a constitutionalist. That means he wants to get us back to the very thing that allowed this country to start to become rich and powerful: individual liberty and a free-market system. We now have a mixed system that is crumbling into dysfunction, debt and recession. The Left see even more socialism as the answer whereas that will only multiply our problems.

I have never heard him say that church and state should be united. That is just another rumor with no substance. If I thought he was a theocrat I would have nothing to do with him. His statement about being a Christian nation is just a historical fact as far as the religious culture America grew out of. I agree with Jefferson and I’m not even a Christian myself, but I have no problem with him calling it how he sees it so long as he doesn’t try to a) set up a theocracy or b) convert others to the faith. And Frankly, I see nothing to worry about in either regard. It’s just another distraction.

He is not against state-funding of education. It is just not the job of the federal government to put people through school, give them housing, fix their teeth or tie their shoes. The job of the federal government is to protect the borders, provide a secured debt-free currency, maintain a postal system, maintain diplomatic relations and uphold the laws of this land. Period. The constitution says “provide FOR the welfare” not to provide services to citizens. That means to provide a secure environment for the people to conduct business, grow families and enjoy their lives in peace without infringement.

He IS for health care access and freedom. The only real way to go about it is by regenerating the economy, returning to a manufacturing economy, cut out the Fed and the IRS and getting off the inflationary debt treadmill. Only then can costs go down and real wages rise up to allow us to afford healthcare. Those who still don’t have access at that point can still get assistance from the states and charities if need be.

About the environment, let’s start with global warming. The Club of Rome thought this up long ago in their bid to force the world into a global government:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…The real enemy, then, is humanity itself….Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose…”

• The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of Rome

The Earth is in between ice ages. That means we are in a solar warming period. Just as the Martian ice caps are melting, so are ours. Now, if you can’t put two and two together and realize what a scam this is, then I don’t know what to do or how to help you. It’s just another scam against the people to rob them of their wealth and freedom. Scams and power plays have been going on since the down of history. Read about it.

Neither the megalithic EPA or the megalithic all-powerful FDA are keeping us safe. In fact, just the opposite because they are totally corrupt. Our environment, our agriculture, and everything else is toxic. Water isn’t safe to drink. Food is full of toxic ingredients. GM crops are contaminating the environment and already causing cancers. Most of our medications have deleterious side-effects that literally kill hundreds of thousands of people anually. Toxicity abounds and most of the health problems we have are caused by this toxic collusion between these fascist megacorporations and the government. Ron Paul wants to get rid of corporate welfare so that these big corporatist socialists cannot monopolize business anymore, so that we can have a truely competitive free-market system where consumers dictate to business and not the other way around.

As far as consumer protection, it is guided by the free-market. They are poisoning us, we don’t have to buy from them. Then if there is a crisis, the bad guys will be prosecuted under again, the laws of the state, not the federal government. If citizens have a problem with a polluter, they can get together and force them to comply. You don’t need a huge overbearing federal bureacracy to protect health and the environment. Some people will always lose out in a free system, but it is impossible to make everybody either equal or painfree no matter what system you have. The overall benefits of a free-market libertarian system vastly outweigh the inevitable problems and injustices that will occur.

Abortion is not protected under the US constitution. There is nowhere in it that says you have the right to terminate human life at will. Aside from Roe vs. Wade, the legal codes of most states do allow that abortions are sometimes necessary on a case-by-case basis. RP says leave it up to the states. If you don’t like the laws there, change them or move to another state that suits your needs. People forget that the states are supposed to be sovereign entities, countries unto themselves in fact, with the right to govern themselves as they see fit. It is not the job of the federal government to tell the states how to conduct their own affairs.

He is not an “isolationist”. That is the favorite buzzword bandied about by both liberals and neocons. He is a constitutionalist non-interventionist. We have no right policing the world and the federal government has no right to dole out money to other countries, especially when we are a debtor nation ourselves. There are plenty of multimillion and even billion dollar private charities that can exercise good will in other countries and at home in fact. RP wants to trade with other countries. He wants to maintain good diplomatic relations with other countries. He wants to stay out of their affairs and especially stop boming them and overthrowing their governments. What more do you want?

The bottom line is to return power to the local level. He is very concerned about giving people an environment where they can excell and better themselves. His campaign is absolutely about empowering the little guy. He has no plans to suddenly yank the rug out from people and realizes the necessity to make the transition gradually in ways that cause the least amount of pain.

Again, what more do you want?

PW

Alright, I take that back and I am sorry if I failed to acknowledge any faults with the man. I do have a few problems of my own with Ron Paul and I will be brief this time.

1. Associates himself with Reagan, a Bohemian Grover puppet who quadrupled military spending, started us off into spiraling debt and made a deal with that Russky devil Gorbachev. Never liked Red Ronnie Reagan.

2. Wrote in praise of the Pope. That does worry me because frankly I think the Vatican (a sovereign nation in itself) has way too much power and sway over our government. In fact, I will go so far as to say the Vatican is one of the greatest dangers to our republic. It was the Vatican that signed the concordat with Hitler for just one of many examples of wickedness that comes out of that place. If RP ingratiates himself with the Pope, it is a great danger just as Jefferson said, “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty.”

3. He is close in with the John Birch Society. I don’t have too many problems with their stances on most issues, but again, they are tied with with freemasonry and the Vatican and though they are anticommunist (that’s good) they have never said they are fighting against fascism, which is not good. They should be against both and so far as I can tell, there is a fascist element in the JBS that is dangerous.

4. He won’t discuss 9/11 as an inside job, but I recognize the danger that presents to his credibility, so I generally don’t quibble over it especially since he agrees that another investigation is warranted.

5. Association with Guy Fawks and V for Vendetta. I totally disagree with the mindset of terrorism no matter what the cause is, so I think this is an unfortunate and wrong move on the part of his campaign. It is just another thing for critics to pounce upon and adding to their claim that RP is a fringe case of the right-wing nut squad or whatever they are saying about him.

Okay, those are my criticisms of him. They don’t so far outweigh my general approval of his overall stances on the issue, but frankly I am willing to change my tune if somewhere down the road I think he is going to sell America out to anyone.

PW

It is interesting to read how many people think that a more socialist approach in governing would be the absolute downfall.

Hopefully this does not come as a surprise, but there are actually countries in this world with large scale social programs…the Scandinavians come to mind. Their societies are far from the brink of disaster. In fact the quality of life is arguably the best in the world…for ALL of their citizens.

I am not worried about electing a candidate who does not agree with me 100% on all issues, as long as the candidate is willing and able to take in new information and change his/her mind if reason warrants it. I am willing to trust that reasoned argument will either prove my ideas or discover better ones, which I will gladly adopt!

Ron Paul has not demonstrated either willingness or ability to reason outside the box of his ideological convictions. Some of his supporters, like Daniel Meissler here, have, but not Ron Paul.

Being able to abstract general principles from a multitude of facts and apply them to new facts is the mark of an intelligent person. Being unable to see facts than contradict your abstract principles is the mark of an ideologue. Anyone who can say “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers,” or call the Constitution “replete with references to God,” can’t see facts through the filter of his ideology. A man who doesn’t care what happens to people who cannot afford education or health care as long as his Constitutional principles are kept pure is an ideologue.

I agree that Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have all expanded federal bureaucracy and spending, and the Bush/Cheney administration has built the power of the Executive branch to a level unprecedented in American history, shredding the Constitutional system of checks and balances. I agree that a balance of power between levels of government (city, county, state, federal) is as necessary as a balance of power between branches of government, to safeguard the maximum individual liberty.

I do not agree that the way to balance one extreme is to head to the opposite extreme. Polarization freezes brain cells. When we tune out the faults of Our Side and tune out the strengths of Their Side, we severely weaken our ability to solve problems!

On the abortion question, I recognize that there are arguments on both sides; but however the argument is decided, it affects everyone equally. If the fetus is an individual with individual rights, then the federal government is constitutionally bound to enforce the rights of ALL fetuses in America, not just those in states that agree with the argument. If fetuses are not individuals and the rights of women to our own bodies take priority, then the federal government is constitutionally bound to enforce the rights of ALL women in America, not just those in states that agree with the argument. Personally, I want to save the lives of as many fetuses, infants, AND women as possible — and making abortion illegal does NOT do that. Providing health care, food, shelter, education, and safety from violence to all pregnant women, including those in poverty, does.

And whether or not the President of the U.S. can personally mandate any of that, he/she has a very great influence over it.

I think you are having a hard time deciding if you are a libertarian or a socialist. You seem to like both systems. I can not think of anything the government regulates that works. As soon as the politicians get involved it turns corrupt. One thing to keep in mind is we survived a long time and did very well before all this regulation. We let the government start regulating things and look what is happening. We are falling behind the rest of the world very quickly. The problem with socialism is a few benefit and the majority suffer.

Totally wrong. The Constitution bans a federal link between church and state. In the early years of the Republic, Massachusetts and Ct had established religions.

I’d like to say Thank You for writing such an informative and articulate article on Dr. Paul. The world needs hundreds more like you.

I reside in Dr. Paul’s district and I have attended many of his public functions over the years. I have met and spoken with him numerous times and the thing that impressed me the most about him is that he is REAL. He does not put on airs and pretend he is something he is not. He does not lay down his principles for anyone or anything. He has a solid moral conviction to return this country to the people for which it was founded.

I’m glad that you will not let your doubts and fears about his missing action plans deter you from supporting him.

I have been of voting age for several years now and I have seen many politicians and elections come and go. After reading your article I tried very hard to think of any one candidate during my tenure as a voter that have ever supplied an action plan to back up his/her intent or promises, whose campaign didn’t suffer and die for it. The general rule at this juncture in the game is to state your position on the issues. Devising and implementing a workable plan comes later, once you are in office.

Providing a detailed, step-by-step action plan at this time would be tantamount to campaign suicide for any of the candidates currently up for consideration. Their opponents and the “political analysts” would dissect them with it. Their “spinned out” twisted version of the plan would be used to squash the candidate idiodic enough to supply them with such ample fodder.

Never fear…Dr. Paul has been speaking about the changes that need to happen for many years now. The plans are there, but the time is not ripe for their debut.

I stumbled across this site and read it with interest. I read through the comments and noticed several people talking living life the way they want to if Ron Paul would be elected President.

How is it living life the way you want to when someone tells you what to do with you body? Last time I checked, a government that controlled the personal details of your life such as whether or not a woman is pregnant….is in fact fascist.

I certainly don’t like abortion, but I don’t have the right to tell someone they can’t do it. The whole argument about abortion being murder is ridiculous. Every single one of us helps to commit murder everyday. From the clothes we buy (made in sweatshops) to the cars we drive (which produce CO2) we all take actions daily that affect the lives and the health of others. Don’t those children in Asian countries working to death for pennies a day matter?

I actually think every point here that is supposed to be a mark against Paul is a mark for him. Thanks for cementing my belief in Ron Paul :)